Table of Contents
Team Vision for Detailed Design Phase
Progress ReportProgress was communicated to guide and customer in Detailed Design Review. Challenges moving forward were addressed and budget plan will be made and sent to customer at the beginning of MSD II.
Prototyping, Engineering Analysis, Simulation
Prioritized Root Cause Diagram
Drawings, Schematics, Flow Charts, Simulations
Standardized Shipper Sizes and WindowSkin Ranges
The proposed shipper sizes were selected from considering standard pallet sizes and looking at current WexEnergy order sizes. Four standard shipper sizes will accommodate all possible size WindowSkins. The sizes were optimized to best fit various WindowSkin sizes while easily packaging the different standard shipper sizes to fit on pallets. The shippers will be RSC boxes as explained above. Shipper size 1&2 can fit on a standard 48”x40” pallet and size 3&4 can fit on a custom 60”x40” pallet. The shippers will be made out of 32 ECT corrugated cardboard.
The four standard size shippers can accommodate all possible size WindowSkins. The size range of WindowSkins is listed in the chart above.
The divider drawing is for standard shipper size 1. There are 4 dividers one for each standard shipper size and each have the same envelop design with the tabs to hold the flaps in place when packaging.
All 4 dividers will be made from 32 ECT corrugated cardboard.
The folding edges protect the entire length of seal, protecting the corners and therefore not requiring corner protectors.
The envelope divider design provides individual slots for WindowSkins protecting the WindowSkins from surface damage from scratches and from sagging in the middle.
The envelope divider is stiffer than current divider and is easier to package than the old divider design with corner protectors. The new solution requires less labor time to package.
Finally the one piece WindowSkin and divider provides dummy proof unpackaging for customer and increases the customer experience unpackaging the WindowSkins by having finger hole for easy removal access of a professional one piece divider.
Mitigating Extra Space
This Pugh Chart shows that if additional extra space inside needs to mitigated, that crinkle paper will be used.
Palletization: Stacking Height
Pallets will not be double stacking during the LTL shipping. A no stacking agreement will be made with the shipper and “No stacking” cones can be placed on the stacked pallets for extra precaution.
The maximum recommended safe stacking height suggested from the RIT packaging department and a shipping expert a Kodak is a maximum of 60” of stacked shippers per pallet.
Stacking at a maximum height of 60" also makes stretch wrap feasible as workers can reach the top of the pallet.
The Standard Shipper Size Heights are in 1 ft intervals making it easier to palletize various standard shipper sizes at once which also allows the pallet to be used for its optimized capacity.
Palletization: Securing Stacked Shippers
Blown Film Stretch Wrap as the Pugh chart above shows how it is the best option. The blown film stretch wrap is more expensive than other stretch wraps however it requires half as many wraps as other stretch wraps and therefore requires less material. The blown stretch wrap has the best tensile properties and bursting properties than other stretch wraps.
Additionally, the stretch wrap more safely secures various stacking orientations than any type of banding.
Palletization: Stacking Orientation
Column Stacking is recommended for future stacking solutions at WexEnergy. Column staking allows for better compression strength properties of the various shippers.
Standard Shipper Sizes 1&2 can be shipped on a standard 48”x40” pallet.
Standard Shipper Sizes 3&4 need to be shipped on a custom 60”x40” pallet.
The RIT Packaging Department Cape Pack software was used to analyze how to optimize the space of stacking shippers on a standard pallet by comparing potential column and interlocking stacking methods.
Bill of Material (BOM)Bill of Materials
The following test above encompasses the tests required to meet the ISTA 3E standard. The equipment for the tests listed is the specific equipment that the RIT packaging science department has available for us to use.
Design and Flowcharts
Risk AssessmentDuring this phase, two new risks were added to the risk table and accompanying graph:
- Return on investment for new tooling is too long. In order to make the new design for the shipper divider, new tooling will need to be purchased for it. However if the return on investment for that new tooling is not quick enough, it will be much harder to justify buying the tooling and using the new divider solution as well.
- Takes too long to obtain prototype for new solution. In order to test our new divider design we are working with Jamestown Packaging Containers to obtain a sample or prototype to use on the packaging science testing machines. If the time to acquire this prototype takes too long, then it will set back the entire project and delay meeting key objectives on time.
When comparing all of the risks we found one that was the highest score, and is therefore the one we will try to mitigate the most:
- New insert design model is too costly
For any supplementary information on the risks please see the associated live document with all risk data.